System and method for monitoring and grading a cybersecurity framework

ABSTRACT

A cybersecurity system is provided that sums and scores one or more cybersecurity controls for different client computing systems that each have different attributes, needs, and interests. In addition, the cybersecurity system provides to each different client computing system auto-suggestions that suggest one or more ways in which the client computing system may improve the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information stored on the client computing system and/or improve the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the underlying characteristics of the client computing system. In addition, the cybersecurity system verifies that the functioning of the client computing system has improved.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 15/809,466 which was filed on Nov. 10, 2017 by Padriac O'Reillyfor a SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING AND GRADING A CYBERSECURITYFRAMEWORK and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent ApplicationSer. No. 62/434,086, which was filed on Dec. 14, 2016, by PadraicO'Reilly for SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING AND GRADING ACYBERSECURITY FRAMEWORK, both of which are hereby incorporated byreference in their entirety.

BACKGROUND Technical Field

The invention relates generally to cybersecurity, and in particular, toa system and cybersecurity framework configured to suggest and verifyone or more particular actions that improve a client computing system'scompliance with a cybersecurity standard.

Background Information

Cybersecurity is a growing industry, as computers have become theleading devices for information storage and retrieval. To that end, andto ensure that information and computing systems are secure, complianceorganizations have developed different catalogs that provide guidance,in the form of controls, as to how client computing systems shouldensure that the information they store and the computing systems thatthey operate are secure. However, each client has differentorganizational attributes, desires, and needs such that certain controlsmay be more applicable than others. Thus, it may be difficult todetermine for each client computing system which controls should beimproved and the manner in which the controls should be improved suchthat the client computing system has increased compliance with thecontrols.

SUMMARY

The inventive cybersecurity system sums and scores one or morecybersecurity controls for different client computing systems that eachhave different attributes, desires, and needs. In addition, thecybersecurity system provides to each different client computing systemauto-suggestions that suggest one or more ways in which the clientcomputing system may improve the confidentiality, integrity, andavailability of the information stored on the client computing systemand/or improve the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of theunderlying characteristics of the client computing system.

Specifically, an authorized individual associated with an organizationthat operates a client computing system or an auditor may access thecybersecurity system over a computer network utilizing a computingdevice (e.g., desktop computer, mobile device, etc.). Particularorganizational information associated with the organization may beprovided to the cybersecurity system utilizing a user interface, such asa graphical user interface (GUI). In addition, control informationassociated with one or more cybersecurity controls may also be providedto the cybersecurity system utilizing the user interface. For example,the control information may indicate that the client computing system isin compliance with a particular security control, is not in compliancewith the particular security control, is in partial compliance with aparticular security control, or that the particular security control isnot applicable. The cyber security controls may be defined in a catalogof security controls (e.g., National Institute of Standards andTechnology (NIST) 800-53-Rev. 4, ISO/TEC 27000 that is herebyincorporated by reference) for United States federal informationsystems.

The cybersecurity system may provide, through the user interface, one ormore query scripts based on the organizational information, controlinformation, a target state that the client computing system desires toreach with respect to compliance of the particular security control,and/or the gap between the control information and the target state. Inresponse to the query scripts, the authorized individual may provide oneor more responses utilizing the user interface. Based on the responses,the cybersecurity system may automatically provide, through the userinterface, one or more suggestions for improving the client computingsystem such that compliance for the particular control improves orreaches the target state. The cybersecurity system may then verify thatthe client computing system in fact implemented the one or moresuggestions and that compliance for the particular control improvedand/or reached the target state.

Advantageously, the cybersecurity system that is remotely located fromeach of the different client computing systems is configured to provideunique suggestions for improving each of the different client computingsystems that have different attributes, needs, and interests. Inaddition, and by utilizing the cybersecurity system, theconfidentiality, integrity, and availability associated with the clientcomputing system is improved. Specifically, and by implementing thesuggestions provided by the cybersecurity system, the client computingsystem's overall functionality is improved such that the clientcomputing system is more secure and less susceptible to cyber-attacks,for example. Further, the verification process implemented by thecybersecurity system ensures that the functionality of the clientcomputing system has in fact been modified and improved such that theoverall compliance of the client computing system is closer to or at thetarget state desired by the user of the client computing system.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The description below refers to the accompanying drawings, of which:

FIG. 1A is a block diagram of an architecture for communication betweena cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system and one or moredevices associated with one or more embodiments described herein;

FIG. 1B is a block diagram of a system overview of the cybersecurityscoring and recommendation system according to one or more embodimentsdescribed herein;

FIGS. 1C and 1D are a block diagram of a system overview of thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system with a self-calibrating,machine learning capability according to one or more embodimentsdescribed herein;

FIGS. 1E-1G are a flow chart for the operation of the cybersecurityscoring and recommendation system according to one or more embodimentsdescribed herein;

FIGS. 2A and 2B are a flow chart from the viewpoint of an authorizeduser who is utilizing the cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem according to one or more embodiments described herein;

FIGS. 3A and 3B are a flow chart for the operation of the system from aperspective of the cybersecurity system interacting with a user to allowa user to generate a baseline score for a control of an organizationoperating a client computing system, and thereafter establish a targetstate and gap to provide suggestions according to one or moreembodiments described herein;

FIG. 4A is an exemplary user interface representing a dashboard viewaccording to one or more embodiments described herein;

FIG. 4B is an exemplary and detailed spider chart as referenced in FIG.4A;

FIG. 5A is an exemplary user interface illustrating controls andutilities utilized to score a system under evaluation according to oneor more embodiments described herein;

FIG. 5B is an exemplary control scoring interface according to one ormore embodiments described herein;

FIG. 6A is an exemplary graphical interface utilized to providesoptimizations to an authorized user according to one or more embodimentsdescribed herein;

FIG. 6B is an exemplary graphical interface associated with ParetoOptimization according to one or more embodiments described herein;

FIG. 7 is an exemplary graphical interface associated with providingquery scripts according to one or more embodiments described herein; and

FIG. 8 is an exemplary graphical interface associated with providing arecommendation according to one or more embodiments described herein.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF AN ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENT

FIG. 1A is a schematic block diagram depicting an architecture 100 forthe communication between a cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem 99 and one or more devices associated with a system underevaluation 98. FIG. 1A includes a device 101 of an authorized user(e.g., auditor or a user of an organization operating the clientcomputing system). For example, the device 101 may be a cell phone, alaptop, etc., that may execute an application associated with thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99. In additionworkstation 102, which may be associated with the authorized user or adifferent authorized user, executes software associated with thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99. A deep learningchatbot 103 illustratively utilizes automatic speech recognition (ASR)machine learning technology for speech to text, and natural languageunderstanding (NLU) to correct and interpret text. As such, anauthorized user, through device 101 and/or workstation 102, may utilizespeech to interact with the cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem 99. The system's Rest and User Interface Application ProgramInterfaces 104 contain the protocols for information exchange betweenthe device 101 and the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system99, and the information exchange between the workstation 102 and thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99.

An insurance scoring application program interface (API) 105 permits anauthorized user, through device 101 and/or workstation 102, to accessanonymized compliance scores within industry sectors. For example,different industry sectors may have different risk profiles. Somesectors, such as healthcare, may be concerned with integrity, whilefinancial services may be more concerned with data loss and/orconfidentiality. Therefore, the cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem 99 may allow an organization to compare its system risk profileand/or posture (e.g., current state) against other organization profilesin their sector or other sectors. The scoring API 106 allows an auditoror authorized user, through device 101 and/or workstation 102, to scoreand track assessments within the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99. NIST's Cybersecurity Framework (NIST's CSF)107 represents the central control framework utilized by thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 to perform one ormore of the functions as described herein. Although reference is made tothe NIST CSF, it is expressly contemplated that the cybersecurityscoring and recommendation system 99 may utilize any of a variety ofdifferent frameworks to perform one or more of the functions asdescribed herein.

The Authentication API 108 tracks and gives permissions to authorizedusers and auditors accessing the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 utilizing device 101 and/or workstation 102.The analytics API 109 comprises several service handling optimizationswithin the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99. Thereport service API 110 handles data and requests received fromauthorized users through the device 101 and/or the device 102. Inaddition, the report service API 110 provides reports, graphics, and/oroptimizations based upon scores, historical data, and metadata withinassessments to the authorized users through device 101 and/or device102. Databases 111-116 store data for each service within thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99. Although referenceis made to databases 111-116 storing data for each service within thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99, it is expresslycontemplated that any of a variety of different storage devices maystore data for each service. For example, the storage devices mayinclude, but are not limited to, hard disk drives (HDDs) and solid-statedrives (SSDs).

FIG. 1B is a block diagram of a system overview of the cybersecurityscoring and recommendation system 99 according to one or moreembodiments described herein. The cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system's scoring framework 169 supports the assessment,scoring, and optimizations of a system under evaluation 98 by thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99. The cybersecurityscoring and recommendation system 99 utilizes a portfolio view 170 forauthorized users and auditors to extend the assessment capability tomultiple environments according to one or more embodiment describedherein. For example, the environments may include, but are not limitedto, a datacenter, a payment system, a warehouse, and/or a separatecorporate facility. After an authorized user begins scoring anassessment for the system under evaluation 98, the cybersecurity scoringand recommendation system 99 provides multiple reporting functions,query scripts, recommendations, and/or optimizations 171, as describedin further detail below. In addition, one or more user interfaces maypermit dynamic updates to the system under evaluation 98 and trackingwithin the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99. Forexample, tracking provides a time-stamped view of compliance progress ofthe system under evaluation 98. As such, the authorized user may viewthe score of the system 98 as it moves from the current state to thetarget state, as will be described in further detail below. For example,the authorized user may view the compliance progress over a week, month,a year, etc.

The cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 utilizes acontrol scoring system 172 that supports one or more algorithms, models,and optimizations. For example, the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 may utilize one or more mathematical algorithmsto perform summations 173 which provide data to other quantitativeservices to assist in assessing the system under evaluation 98 accordingto one or more embodiments described herein. The cybersecurity scoringand recommendation system 99 utilizes one or more API services 174 tosupport the improvement of the confidentiality, integrity, and/oravailability of information for the system under evaluation 98. Objectand knowledge managers illustratively operate through a message queue175 to control the scoring, user interfaces, models, optimizations,reporting, query scripts, machine learning, and/or artificialintelligence applications within the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99.

The recommendation engine 176 utilizes enriched data from systemapplications to provide guidance to the user or auditor with respect toimproving the confidentiality, integrity, and availability ofinformation for the system under evaluation 98. An authorized userprovides data, such as, but not limited to, historical, market, and/ormetadata that is utilized to produce cost-benefit, risk-based, andPareto Efficient tradeoff space optimizations 177 that may be thenprovided to authorized users and auditors through the device 101 and/orworkstation 102. As known by those skilled in the art, Pareto efficiencyor Pareto optimality is a state of allocation of resources from which itis impossible to reallocate so as to make any one individual orpreference criterion better off without making at least one individualor preference criterion worse off.

Reporting templates and logic 178 supports the data services thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 utilizes to improvethe confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information of thesystem under evaluation 98. Specifically, the reporting templates andlogic 178 allow user to generate reports that summarize the complianceof the system 98, in a graphical form, for example, to otherindividuals, such as stakeholders. That is, the generated reports allowusers to obtain a more accurate picture of the compliance of the system98 at various points, such as at the beginning of evaluation, afterupdates have been made to improve compliance, and continuouslythereafter, as the system 98 updates in real-time. Metadata 179 on userbehavior, scoring, user management, company profile, and marketsolutions may be collected, stored, and employed by services within thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 to assist inimproving the system's compliance towards the target state. Knowledge iscollected, anonymized, and stored 180 for use by system services withinthe cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99. Machine learningmodules, decision models, artificial intelligence services, threatmodels, and data on technology solutions 181 are stored for use byservices within the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99.Multiple frameworks and parameters 182 for models are stored forutilization by services within the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99.

FIGS. 1C and 1D are a block diagram of a system overview of thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system with a self-calibrating,machine learning capability (user populating fields of a user interface)according to one or more embodiments described herein. The graphic issimilar to 1B, but depicts cloud integration 194 of the cybersecurityscoring and recommendation system 99 that allows stakeholders 195 toaccess the application remotely and without requiring software, serverinfrastructure, and database storage on site. As known by those skilledin the art, cloud integration is the process of configuring multipleapplication programs to share data in the cloud. In a network thatincorporates cloud integration, diverse applications communicate eitherdirectly or through third-party software.

FIGS. 1E-1G are a flow chart for the operation of the cybersecurityscoring and recommendation system according to one or more embodimentsdescribed herein. The procedure starts at step 1 and continues to step 2where an authorized user (e.g., an information security professional orauditor) instantiates a scoring session utilizing an applicationassociated with the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99,executing on device 101 and/or workstation 102. Specifically, theauthorized user may “log-in,” as known by those skilled in the art, andbegin an assessment for the system to be evaluated 98. The procedurecontinues to step 3 where the authorized user selects one or morecybersecurity controls, from a catalog, for evaluation. For example, theauthorized user may select SI-4 (4), which is a System and InformationIntegrity control from NIST 800-53, Rev. 4, which is hereby incorporatedby reference, and is associated with inbound and outbound communicationtraffic for unusual or unauthorized activities and/or conditions. Inthis example, SI-4 (4) represents one of 24 control enhancements to theparent control, SI-4, Information System Monitoring. In addition, theuser may provide, through one or more UIs, profile informationassociated with the system 98 and/or organization. For example, theprofile information may include, but is not limited to, revenue of theorganization, budget for the organization, sector of the organization,and/or number of Information Security Professionals employed at theorganization.

The procedure continues to step 4 where the authorized user selects,using the device 101 and/or workstation 102, a particular value for eachof the one or more cybersecurity controls being evaluated. For example,the authorized user may select from one of four fields, (Yes, No,Partial, N/A), to represent the system's current compliance with respectto a particular cybersecurity control. For example, after evaluating thesystem's current posture (e.g., current state), the user respectivelyselects compliant (e.g., Yes), non-compliant (e.g., No), partiallycompliant (e.g., Partial), or non-applicable (e.g., NA) for theparticular cybersecurity control, SI-4 (4). For example, the thirdrequirement for this cybersecurity control may be for a Host-BasedIntrusion Detection System (HIDS). The user may determine that thesystem has a HIDS in place, but that use of the HIDS system is onlypartially compliant given the control requirements language in thecatalog, and thus select “Partial.”

The procedure continues to step 5 where the scoring Application ProgramInterface (API) scores and records the data to appropriately asses thecurrent state of the system 98. For example, a score of “1” mayrepresent compliant, a score of “0” may represent non-compliant, a scoreof 0.5 may represent partial, and N/A may represent not-applicable. Theoverall score, that may represent the collective score for SI-4 (4) forthe cybersecurity control being evaluated, may be expressed as a numberor percentage according to one or more embodiments described herein. Forthis example, the overall score may be a 0.5 representing the system'scurrent state for SI-4 (4). The cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem 99 may then record the individual scores and/or overall score.

The procedure continues to step 6 where the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 transmits the individual scores and/or overallscore to the device 101 and/or workstation 102 to be displayed to theauthorized user. Each individual score may be referred to as a “BaselineScore” for a particular control, and the overall score may also bereferred to as a “Baseline Score” for the entire system underevaluation. The Baseline Score may also be made available to thereporting templates such that an authorized user may generate one ormore reports associated with the current state of the system. Thereports may then be provided to other individuals associated with theorganization, such as, but not limited to organizational stakeholders.

After the Baseline Score(s) are determined, a target state forimprovement of the system under evaluation 98 is determined. Forexample, the authorized user may view the current overall Baseline Scoreof the system and determine that the target state should be a 1. Thenumerical difference between the Baseline Score and the target state iscalled the “Gap.” The Gap in this example is 0.5 since the current scoreis 0.5 and the target score is 1.

The procedure continues to step 7 where the suggestion engine may thenutilize the Baseline Score(s) to generate query scripts based uponorganizational data, utility, and compliance requirements. Specifically,the suggestion engine generates a series of questions (cognitivescripts) concerning compliance status in order to identify where thesystem under evaluation 98 stands at a more granular level with respectto the cybersecurity controls. For example, the query scripts mayinclude, but are not limited to, are firewalls and VPN rules wide open,is HIDS filtering information traffic flows, are unusual or unauthorizedactions defined, has monitoring frequency been defined, is there apolicy in place, and/or which commercial system is in place. In anembodiment, each individual Baseline Score may be associated withdifferent scripts. The query scripts are designed to elicit correctinformation regarding the system under evaluation 98 such that thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 may evaluate progressfrom the current state toward the target state to ensure that correctionsuggestions are provided by the suggestion engine.

The procedure continues to step 8 where the authorized user may provideresponses to the query script provided by the suggestion engine. Forexample, the authorized user may provide Yes/No response utilizing oneor more user interfaces. Alternatively, the authorized user may provideother types of responses. The cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem 99 may then record the authorized user's responses.

In an embodiment the procedure continues to step 9 where thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 may provideadditional queries. For example, and with reference to FIG. 1F, thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 provides a query,based on a partial response provided by the user for the HIDS control,regarding which commercial system is in place (e.g., IBM, Tripwire,Verisys, or other) in the system under evaluation. Had the user insteadprovided a value of non-compliant instead of partial, the suggestionengine may have then provided the authorized user a set of commercialsolutions in a vendor-neutral manner instead of providing the additionalquery. In the example provided in FIG. 1F however, the user provided aresponse of partial compliance, and as such each vendor system in place(e.g., IBM, Tripwire, Verisys, or other) might have differentcapabilities that could lead to a simple and efficient acquisition ofthe target state. The check mark, as depicted next to a particularvendor, confirms that an authorized user verified that this particularcommercial solution is in place. The cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 enriches commercial solutions data withmetadata on all available commercial solutions, and may factor thevarious capabilities into further scripts and suggestions.

After an authorized user provides the relevant information to the queryscripts, the procedure continues to step 10 where the suggestion enginedetermines one or more suggestions for improving the system 98 from thecurrent state towards the target state based on at least the response tothe queries and the current state. In addition, the one or moresuggestions may be further based on the target state, the gap,historical data, and/or other information.

The procedure continues to step 11 where the one or more suggestions areprovided over the network to the device 101 and/or workstation 102 to beviewed by the authorized user. With reference to the example of FIG. 1F,the suggestions may be, but are not limited to, implementing leastprivilege policy and generating firewall configuration document/policy.For example, a particular suggestion may be provided by thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 based on the currentstate of the system 98 and/or answers provided to the query scripts.Specifically, the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 maystore data that indicates that if a system under evaluation 98 has aparticular posture for a control (e.g., 0, 0.5, or 1) and provides aparticular answer to one or more query scripts, then the cybersecurityscoring and recommendation system 99 should provide one or moreparticular suggestions.

The suggestions are provided by the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 to assist in moving the system under evaluation98 from the current state towards the target state. The pointedsuggestions represent the distilled knowledge of the system underevaluation 98, which are generated by using pattern recognition andmachine learning upon the set of query scripts, as described above withreference to step 7, tailored for the set of all possible compliancestates for the system under evaluation 98. The query scripts, in turn,are improved and enhanced by the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 at the data services layer. Additionally, theorganization, during the process of the system 98 moving from thecurrent state to the target state, may upload documents, artifacts, andnotes to a system-wide document store for reference and analysis by teammembers. The cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 may thencapture information from this data, in order to model utility functions,and provide tailored strategies for improving compliance.

The procedure continues to step 12 where the authorized user providesinput indicating whether the one or more suggestions have beenimplemented by the system 98. For example, the authorized user mayutilize device 101 or workstation 102 to provide the response. That is,a user interface may ask the authorized user if each of the one or moresuggestions have been implemented to move the system 98 from the currentstate to the target state, and the user may respond with either “Yes” or“No.”

The procedure continues to step 13 where the verification system, of thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99, verifies/confirmsthat the one or more suggestions have been implemented. In anembodiment, (for a non-technical control such as Access Control Policyand Procedures) the verification process may be based on the the inputprovided by the authorized user indicating whether the one or moresuggestions have been implemented. In an alternative embodiment, thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 may query the system98, through the device 101 and/or workstation 102, to determine if oneor more setting have been changed, wherein the one or more settings areassociated with the one or more suggestions. This data regardingimplementation may also be utilized to further refine the suggestionsprovided suggestion engine, and further conditions the industry/sectorspecific dataset.

The procedure continues to step 14 where the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 displays a new score based on the verificationprocess. With reference to the example of FIG. 1F, the authorized userhas indicated that both suggestions provided by the suggestion enginewere implemented. The cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99may then provide over the network and to the device 101 and/orworkstation 102, the new score that represents the new posture of thesystem under evaluated 98 with respect to the cybersecurity controls.With reference to the example of FIG. 1F, the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 may indicate that the new score is “1.” Assuch, and in this example, the system under evaluation 98 has reachedthe target state.

The particular example with respect to FIG. 1E-1G is simply forillustratively purposes only, and any of a variety of suggestions and/orimplementations may be provided to move the system under evaluation 98from the current state towards the target state, to improve thecybersecurity of the system under evaluation 98. Determining the targetstate, providing the one or more suggestions, and verifying that thesystem has implemented the one or more suggestions represents a clearimprovement to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of thecomputer/system (e.g., improvement to an existing technology andimprovement to the computer itself). In addition, the new score may beutilized to generate one or more reports, as described above.

In an embodiment, the procedure continues to step 15 where data may becollected from external sources on industries, threat probabilities,products, and addition control information, etc. to continuously refinethe cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system's models. In anembodiment, the procedure continues to step 16 where a metadata databasecollects compliance related data activity from the authorized user. Forexample, the metadata database may collect threat data from any of avariety of different public feeds, such as, but not limited to, TheNational Vulnerability Database (NVD), IBM X-Force, US-Cert, BugTraq,etc. In addition, the metadata database may collect public data onoutcomes, such as, but not limited to, breaches, cybercrime, DDoSattacks, etc.

Further, the metadata database may collect publicly available data oncompliance by sector, enterprise size, and legacy system use; data onremediation, time to detection of cyber-events, cost of data loss, etc.Even further, the metadata database may collect public available data onother control frameworks, such as, but not limited to CSC 20, NIST-IR,NY State DFS Section 500.00, IEC 62443, ISO 27000, COBIT 5, etc.

In an embodiment, the procedure continues to step 17 where the knowledgestore database 179 stores data in a relational system for the decisionmodels, the machine learning module, and other system applications,wherein the data may be stored in tabular or relational databasemanagement system (RDMS) form, as known by those skilled in the art. Inan embodiment, the procedure continues to step 18 where the machinelearning module uses pattern recognition and “deep learning” to refactorthe decision models that supply the suggestion engine with queries andsuggestions, as described above. The module may also leverage customdecision logic or commercial off the shelf decision logic such as butnot limited to artificial intelligence, machine learning, fuzzy logic orneural networks to create suggestions according to one or moreembodiments as described herein. The procedure ends at step 19.

FIGS. 2A and 2B are a flow chart from the viewpoint of an authorizeduser who is utilizing the cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem according to one or more embodiments described herein. Theprocedure starts at step 117 and continues to step 118 where anauthorized user initiates the evaluation of a system 98 utilizing thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99. Specifically, theauthorized user logs-in, utilizing device 101 and/or workstation 102, toa portal or website to obtain access to the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99.

The procedure continues to step 119 where the authorized utilizes one ormore user interfaces to select one or more cybersecurity controls thatare to be utilized in evaluating the system 98. The procedure continuesto step 120 where the authorized user assigns each control, of the oneor more selected controls, to one or more other individuals (e.g., otherauthorized users or auditors) such that each control can be provided abaseline score. For example, the authorized user may utilize the device101 and/or workstation 102 to notify each of the other individuals thata control is to be scored. Specifically, each of other individuals mayreceive an email or other notification indicating that the otherindividual is responsible for scoring a particular control.

The procedure continues to step 121 where each control is provided abaseline score. Specifically, the assigned other individual utilizes adevice to provide a baseline score to the control for the system underevaluation 98. For example, the baseline score may be compliant (e.g.,1), non-compliant (e.g., 0), partially compliant (e.g., 0.5), ornot-applicable (e.g., N/A). In addition, the assigned individual mayalso provide current compliance information and an ideal target that theindividual believes the system under evaluation 98 should adhere to. Itis noted that the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 mayconvert each of the baseline scores to a number between 0-100 and/or apercentage. In addition, the cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem 99 may also provide an overall baseline score, between 0-100and/or a percentage, for the system under evaluation 98 and the scoremay be continuously updated as more individual baseline scores arereceived. In addition, the authorized user may provide answers toqueries provided by the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system99, wherein the queries are associated with the completeness andapplicability of the selected controls utilized for the evaluation.

The procedure continues to step 122 where the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 determines if all the selected cybersecuritycontrols have been scored. If, at step 122, it is determined that all ofthe selected cybersecurity controls have not been scored, the systemreverts back to step 121 where cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem 99 waits to receive the baseline scores for the cybersecuritycontrols that have not been scored.

If, at step 122, it is determined that all of the selected cybersecuritycontrols have been scored, the procedure continues to step 123 where anauthorized user may share the current state (e.g., posture) of thesystem under evaluation 98 with one or more other users. For example,the authorized user (e.g., superuser or auditor) may share a dashboardview, which graphically depicts the current state of the system 98, withappropriate stakeholders, wherein the dashboard view containssystem-provided metrics and graphics for the assessment of the systemunder evaluation 98. The procedure continues to step 124 where theauthorized user may call for scoring data and reports through avoice-command enabled chatbot that utilizes automatic speech recognition(ASR) and natural language understanding (NLU) to correct and interprettext, according to one or more embodiments described herein.

In response to calling for scoring data in step 124, the procedurecontinues to step 125 where the authorized user may receive updates andscoring data from the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99through the voice-command enabled chatbot. For example, the authorizeduser may receive information updates on control scoring, updates onparticular documents or compliance related notes, wherein the updatesmay be dated and time-stamped.

The procedure continues to step 126 where the authorized user maygenerate customized reports for stakeholders such as informationsecurity teams, risk officers, executives, and board members, utilizingthe report service as described above and according to one or moreembodiments described herein. Specifically, the authorized user mayutilize device 101 and/or workstation 102 to send one or more commandsto the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 such that thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 generates the reportthat is customized based on the authorized user's needs.

The procedure continues to step 127 where the authorized userestablishes (e.g., determines) and/or updates a compliance target state.For example, the authorized user may utilize the baseline score(s) todetermine the target state for the system under evaluation 98 asdescribed above with reference to FIGS. 1E-1G. The procedure continuesto step 128 where the authorized user answers questions provided by thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system, wherein the questionsmay include, but are not limited to, enterprise size, budget, and riskprofile (e.g., metadata regarding the organization). The answers areprovided to enhance metrics, recommendations, and optimizations that areoutput by the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99.

The procedure continues to step 129 where the Gap is established.Specifically, the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99establishes the Gap based on the current state of the system underevaluation 98 and the target state of the system under evaluation 98.The procedure continues to step 130 where the authorized user determinesif the Gap is accurate. Specifically, the authorized user evaluates theGap, representing the target state of the system under evaluation 98versus the current state of the system under evaluation 98, to determinewhether the Gap can be remediated and closed such that the system underevaluation 98 can move from the current state towards the target state.If at step 130 it is determined that the Gap is not accurate, theprocedure reverts back to step 127 where a new target state may bedetermined.

If at step 130 it is determined that the Gap is accurate, the procedurecontinues to step 131 where the cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem 98 provides, to the authorized user, one or more recommendationsfor mitigating the Gap, which will improve the confidentiality,availability, and integrity of system under evaluation 98. For example,a particular suggestion may be provided by the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 based on the current state of the system underevaluation 98 and/or answers provided to the questions. Specifically,the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 may store datathat indicates that if a system under evaluation 98 has a particularposture for a control (e.g., 0, 0.5, or 1) and provides a particularanswer to one or more query scripts, then the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 should provide one or more particularsuggestions to move the system under evaluation 98 from the currentstate towards the target state.

The procedure continues to step 132 where the authorized user assignstasks to other authorized users, thereby beginning the process ofimplementing the recommendations to close the Gap. Specifically, theauthorized user may utilize device 101 and/or workstation 102 to sendone or more notifications to the other authorized users regarding thetasks to be completed to close the Gap. The procedure continues to step133 where the authorized user answers query scripts provided by thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99. It is noted thatcybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 may provide the queryscripts to the authorized user prior to providing the suggestions atstep 131 in similar manner as described above with reference to FIGS.1E-1G. In addition, the authorized user may provide remediation data tothe cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99. Remediation datamay include, but is not limited to, purchasing or activating commercialsolutions, writing a policy, instantiating an incident response plan,etc. The procedure continues to step 134 where one or more new reportsare created based on the implementation of the one or more suggestionsand the one or more new reports are provided to the authorized user.

The procedure continues to steps 135-137 where the system underevaluation 98 may repeatedly or continuously update the system underevaluation 98 in the manner described above. Specifically, thesuggestions are provided, tasks assigned, a Plan of Action andRecommendations (POAM) is determined, and query scripts are provided tocontinuously improve the confidentiality, integrity, and availability ofthe assessed system under evaluation 98 according to one or moreembodiment described herein. The procedure continues to step 138 whereartifacts and evidence are collected. Specifically, the artifacts andevidence may be provided by the authorized user to the cybersecurityscoring and recommendation system 99, wherein the artifacts and evidenceindicate what suggestions and/or updates have been implemented by thesystem under evaluation 98 to improve the cybersecurity of the systemunder evaluation 98. For example, the authorized user may utilize device101 and/or workstation 102 to provide the artifacts and evidence to thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99.

The procedure continues to step 139 where the changes/remediation may betracked. For example, the cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem 99 may query the system under evaluation 98 to determine if thesuggestions and/or updates have been made to the system under evaluation98. Based on the tracking of the changes/remediation, the procedurecontinues to step 140 where the cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem 99 may generate different updates to be implemented by the systemunder evaluation 98 to further improve cybersecurity. The procedure thencontinues to step 141 where the target state or new state of the systemunder evaluation 98 is evaluated. For example, the cybersecurity scoringand recommendation system may provide, to the device 101 and/orworkstation 102, a new score representing the new posture of the systemunder evaluation 98 after the cybersecurity of the system has beenupdated.

The procedure continues to step 142 where the authorized user producesreports, based on the new score of the system under evaluation 98, forrelevant stakeholders utilizing the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99. The reports may include, but are not limitedto, graphics, scores, and recommendations for information security teammembers, risk officers, executives, and board members according to anembodiment of the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99.

FIGS. 3A and 3B are a flow chart from the viewpoint of the cybersecurityscoring and recommendation system when performing an assessment of asystem under evaluation according to one or more embodiments describedherein. The procedure starts at step 143 and continues to step 144 wherethe cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 authenticates anauthorized user associated with the system under evaluation 98. Forexample, the authorized user may provide, utilizing device 101 and/orworkstation 102, a username and password to the cybersecurity scoringand recommendation system 99 for authentication purposes.

After authentication, the procedure continues to step 145 where thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 activates one or morecontrol interfaces and records the controls selected by the authorizeduser for evaluating the system 98, and also records other system relatedinformation provided by the authorized user. For example, thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 may record whichcontrols have been assigned to particular users that are to score thecontrols.

In addition, the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 mayassign numerical values (e.g., 0, 0.5, 1, N/A) to the user-providedassessment of the controls being evaluated, and then record this data.The cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 may providecurrent state information to one or more authorized users. For example,the numerical value(s) representing the current state of the systemunder evaluation 98 may be displayed on the device 101 and/orworkstation 102.

The cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 may also providethe score as it is updated at one or more different times, wherein thecurrent score (e.g., current state) is a number between 0-100. Inaddition, the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 mayrecord cybersecurity “maturity” process information and convert thatinformation into the numerical scale, as described above. Specifically,the maturity process information may indicate the maturation of aparticular control over time and such information may be utilized by thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 to generate reports,provide suggestions, and/or provide query scripts.

The procedure continues to step 146 where the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 loads models/parameters from a database orother data store and records a baseline score for the system underevaluation. For example, the models/parameters may be utilized by thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 to classify thecurrent state of the system under evaluation 98. Specifically, themodels may be associated with other systems similar to the system underevaluation 98 and the models/parameters may include, but are not limitedto, threat by sector/system models and information, compliance by sectormodels and information, etc. In addition, the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 may also record the individual baseline scoresfor the selected control and/or an overall baseline score for the systemunder evaluation.

In addition, the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 mayrecord received user behavior and compliance data to generate theappropriate query scripts and to select particular machine learningmodels and artificial intelligence optimization. The user data andcompliance data may be utilized to categorize and understand how aparticular control develops over time, such that the cybersecurityscoring and recommendation system 99 can learn which controls are moreproblematic than others. This information can then be utilized to selectbetter suggestion to be provided to the system under evaluation 98 andalso to provide better query scripts.

The procedure continues to step 147 where the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 provides query scripts to the authorized user,wherein the query scripts elicit information from the authorized userconcerning the completeness and applicability of the control setselected for evaluation of the system 98, and the cybersecurity scoringand recommendation system 99 records the answers provided by theauthorized user. For example, the query scripts may be displayed ondevice 101 and/or workstation 102, and the authorized user may provideanswers to the query scripting utilizing, for example, an input deviceof the device 101 and/or workstation 102. The procedure continues tostep 148 where the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99asks the authorized user if the scoring of the system under evaluation98 is accurate. For example, the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system may display the baseline score(s) on the device101 and/or workstation 102 and request that the authorized user confirmthat the score is accurate. If the authorized user does not confirm thatthe scoring is accurate, the system may revert back to step 145.

However, if the authorized user confirms that the scoring accurate, theprocedure continues to step 149 where the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 loads scoring models and provides one or moreauthorized users with one or more assessment reports via an applicationdashboard that may be displayed on the device 101 and/or workstation102. Specifically, the scoring models are loaded to begin the process ofgenerating reports that indicate the current state of the system underevaluation 98, wherein the scoring models include information aboutother similar systems having similar controls.

In an embodiment, the procedure continues to step 150 where thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 may provideapplication data and reports in response to a voice-command enabledchatbot that illustratively utilizes automatic speech recognition (ASR)and natural language understanding (NLU) to correct and interpret text.Further and in an embodiment, the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 may provide data and updates to authorizedusers using the voice-command enabled chatbot.

The procedure continues to step 151 where the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99, through the reports API for example, providescustomized reports and the baseline score(s). For example, thecustomized reports may be provided to stakeholders such as, but notlimited to, information security teams, risk officers, executives, andboard members according to one or more embodiments described herein. Forexample, the customized reports may indicate the current state of thesystem under evaluation 98. In addition, the baseline score may bedisplayed on device 101 and/or workstation 102 associated with theauthorized user and/or stakeholder. The procedure continues to step 152where the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 recordsassessment reporting data to generate one or more reports. For example,an authorized user may utilize the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 to produce a report on recent threats that havebeen addressed and mitigated and other reports regarding the currentstate of the system under evaluation 98.

The procedure continues to step 153 where the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 records the target state for the system underevaluation 98. For example, the authorized user may establish the targetstate utilizing device 101 and/or workstation 102 and the scoreassociated with the target state may be displayed on device 101 and/orworkstation 102. The procedure continues to step 154 where thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 records user-providedmetadata to enhance metrics, recommendations, and/or optimizations. Forexample, the user-provided metadata may be utilized by the cybersecurityscoring and recommendation system 99 to provide better recommendationsfor subsequent evaluations of the system 98.

The procedure continues to step 155 where the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 determines the Gap for the system underevaluation 98, wherein the Gap represents the difference between thecurrent state and target state for the system under evaluation 98. Forexample, the Gap may be determined and then displayed on device 101and/or workstation 102. The procedure continues to step 156 where it isdetermined if the Gap is accurate. Specifically, the authorized userevaluates the Gap, representing the target state of the system underevaluation 98 versus the current state of the system under evaluation98, to determine whether the Gap can be remediated and closed such thatthe system under evaluation 98 can move from the current state towardsthe target state. For example, the authorized user may indicate that theGap is accurate or not accurate utilizing device 101 and/or workstation102. If at step 156 it is determined that the Gap is not accurate, thesystem reverts back to step 153 where a new target for the system underevaluation 98 is recorded by the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 after the authorized user has provided a newtarget state.

If at step 156 it is determined that the Gap is accurate, the procedurecontinues to step 157 where the cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem 99 records the planned path(s) to remediate and close the Gap,and provides one or more suggestions to the authorized user to remediateand close the Gap between the current state and the target state of thesystem under evaluation 98 after, for example, user-generated parameterson cost, risk, process, technology, and labor are recorded. For example,a particular suggestion may be provided by the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 based on the current state of the system underevaluation 98 and/or answers provided to the query scripts.Specifically, the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 maystore data that indicates that if a system under evaluation has aparticular posture for a control (e.g., 0, 0.5, or 1) and provides aparticular answer to one or more query scripts, then the cybersecurityscoring and recommendation system 99 should provide one or moreparticular suggestions to move the system under evaluation 98 form thecurrent state towards the target state.

It is noted that the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99may generate and provide additional suggestions and query scripts tofurther mitigate the Gap, for example, after the system under evaluation98 has been updated to further improve the confidentiality,availability, and integrity of the information system under evaluation98.

The procedure continues to step 158 where the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 199 loads optimization data. The optimization datamay be utilized to assist in mitigating the Gap. The procedure continuesto step 159 where the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99records assigned tasks to be performed by one or more authorized usersto begin the process of implementing recommendations to close the Gap.The procedure continues to step 160 and the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 notifies the users of controls task to beperformed for remediation (e.g., to close the Gap). Specifically, thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 may send one or moremessages to the device 101 and/or workstation 102 operated by authorizeduser to inform the authorized user of the task to be performed.

The procedure continues to step 161 where the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 records user remediation actions. For example,the authorized user may utilize device 101 and/or workstation 102 toindicate which actions have been taken to close the Gap for the systemunder evaluation 98. Specifically, the authorized user may utilize oneor more user interfaces to provide the indications to the thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99. In addition, thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 may record a newbaseline score for the system under evaluation 98 after the suggestionshave been implemented, and may update the score, and/or may generate newsuggestions and/or query scripts to continuously and further improve theconfidentiality, integrity, and availability of the system underevaluation 98.

The procedure continues to step 162 where and the cybersecurity scoringand recommendation system 99 records artifacts and evidence.Specifically, the artifacts and evidence may be provided by theauthorized user to the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system99, wherein the artifacts and evidence indicate what suggestions and/orupdates have been implemented by the system under evaluation 98 toimprove the cybersecurity of the system under evaluation 98. Forexample, the authorized user may utilize device 101 and/or workstation102 to provide the artifacts and evidence to the cybersecurity scoringand recommendation system 99.

The procedure continues to step 163 where the data regarding the changesto the system under evaluation 98 and the POAM utilized to update thesystem under evaluation 98 are provided to the authorized user. Theprocedure continues to step 164 where the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 may record data regarding the new state of thesystem under evaluation 98. For example, the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 may record information indicating the newcurrent posture of the system under evaluation 98. The procedurecontinues to step 165 where the data regarding the new state of thesystem under evaluation 98 is made available to the dashboard. Forexample, the dashboard may be displayed on device 101 and/or workstation102 such that the authorized user may view information regarding the newstate of the system under evaluation 98. The procedure continues to step166 where the data regarding the new state of the system underevaluation 98 may be recorded or logged to a database and/or historicalstore.

The procedure continues to step 167 where the new state of the systemunder evaluation 98 is determined, by the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99, to be the new baseline for the system underevaluation 98 and new POAM/optimization to further mitigate the Gap orto create a new target state for implementation may be provided based onthe authorized user's request. For example, the authorized user maydetermine that the confidentiality, availability, and/or integrity ofthe system under evaluation 98 may be improved further. The procedurethen ends at step 168.

FIG. 4A is an exemplary user interface representing a dashboard view 198according to one or more embodiments described herein. Dashboard view198 may be accessed by the authorized user utilizing device 101 and/orworkstation 102. Specifically, the authorized user may log onto awebsite associated with cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system99 and provide a unique username and a password to gain access the thedashboard view 198 associated with the system under evaluation 98. Thedashboard view 198 may provide to the authorized user assessments andscoring of the system under evaluation 98. For example and withreference to FIG. 4A, the current score 199 is displayed in a portion ofthe dashboard view 198, wherein the current score 199 indicates thecurrent posture of the system under evaluation 98 (e.g., baselinescore). In this example, the current score of 61 (from 0-100) indicatesthe current state of the system under evaluation 98. The dashboard view198 may further include a spider chart 200 that depicts that current andtarget states for the overall assessment of the system under evaluation98.

For example, the spider chart may depict the current state and targetstate, as depicted in the gray scale, for the assessment of the systemunder evaluation 98 with respect to the five functions of NIST's CSF(e.g., identify, protect, detect, respond, and recover). As known bythose skilled in the art NIST CSF has five critical functions: Identify,Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. These are high-level actions fororganizations to implement and continuously improve upon. Each Frameworkfunction has a set of associated categories and subcategories, whichrepresent a more specific set of cybersecurity activities. For example,the function Identify's first category is Asset Management, whichdirects the organization to consider all the assets they have undermanagement that support their business functions. The first subcategorywithin Asset Management is ID.AM-1: Physical devices and systems withinthe organization are inventoried. Within each subcategory, then, thereexists a set of associated controls from NIST 800-53 Revision 4, thecontents of which are hereby incorporated by reference.

The dashboard view 198 may further include a navigational bar 201 thatenumerates the system utilities and optimizations provided by thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 to an authorizeduser. As depicted in FIG. 4A, the authorized user may select one of avariety of different tabs (e.g., dashboard, assessments, reports,X-force, optimizations, and settings) from navigation bar 201 to performone or more different functions. For example, the authorized user mayview the dashboard by selecting the dashboard tab. Further, theauthorized user may select the assessments tab to select a system underevaluation. As depicted in FIG. 4A, there are three total systems underevaluation, namely Concord Corn, Vanderhoof Longboats, and TestJuly. Inaddition, the authorized user may select the reports tab to generate oneor more reports as described above. Furthermore, the authorized user mayselect the X-force tab to access the top twenty threats updated dailythrough IBM's threat feed, which draws on communal curation, and otherthreat databases such as the National Vulnerability Database, US-CERT,and BugTraq. Moreover, the authorized user may select the optimizationstab to view the results of a cost versus impact algorithm that projectsto a target score.

Even further, the authorized user may select the settings tab to changeone or more settings associated with the system under evaluation 98 orchange one or more settings associated with the authorized user. Forexample, the authorized user may change his/her password after selectingthe settings tab or, for example, enable two-factor authentication byscanning a QR code. Although reference is made to particular tabs innavigation bar 201, it is expressly contemplated that the navigation bar201 may have additional and/or different tabs.

The dashboard view 198 further includes active assessments 202 thatinclude the the assessments (e.g., scores), associated with the systemunder evaluation 98, which are open and under evaluation. For example,the assessments depicted in FIG. 4A indicate a baseline score for thesystem under evaluation 98, while the “Cyberstrong” score is a “rollup”score (e.g., overall score) of all three assessments, which representsan average of the assessment scores of Concord Corn, VanderhoofLongboats, and TestJuly. This navigational button 203 may be selected bythe authorized user such that the authorized user can view allassessments that are opened and under evaluation. A descriptor 204indicates a schema for the data provided by the spider chart 205. Inthis example, the descriptor 204 indicates that the spider-chart 205 isassociated the plurality of different control families and the currentand target scores for each of the different control families.

Specifically, the spider chart 205 provides a depiction of the currentscore and and target score, as depicted in the gray scale, of the systemunder evaluation for each of the 18 control families in NIST'sCybersecurity Framework. More specifically, and with reference to theexemplary and detailed spider chart 205 as depicted in FIG. 4B, the 18control families include: Access Control, Audit and Accountability,Awareness and Training, Security Assessment and Authorization,Configuration Management, Contingency Planning, Identification andAuthentication, Incident Response, Maintenance, Media Protection,Physical and Environmental Protection, Planning, Personnel Security,Risk Assessment, System and Services Acquisition, System andCommunications Protection, System and Information Integrity, and ProgramManagement. Although spider chart 205 provides scores for each of the 18control families in the NIST's CSF, it is expressly contemplated thatspider chart 205 may depict the scores for any other cybersecurityframework.

FIG. 5A is an exemplary user interface 206 illustrating controls andutilities utilized to score a system under evaluation 98 according toone or more embodiments described herein. Button 207 may be selected tocancel all control and framework filtering. That is, button 207 may beselected by the authorized user to “restart” the evaluation of thesystem 98. Button 208 may be selected by the authorized user to view allof the controls that have been flagged for the system under evaluation98. For example, the authorized user may flag particular controls andthe controls may be recorded by the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99. In addition, user interface 206 may includebutton 209, which if selected, causes the interface to display onlythose controls that apply to NIST CSF: Identify, Protect, Detect,Respond, and Recover, which are hereby incorporated by reference. Inthis example, the user has selected button 209 and as such, thefunctions, defined by buttons 212 and associated with NIST CSF, aredisplayed.

In addition, user interface 206 may include button 210, which ifselected, causes the interface to display only those controls that applyto the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), aregulatory standard for defense contractors, which is herebyincorporated by reference. For example, if the authorized user selectsbutton 210, the user interface 206 would display those functionsassociated with DFARS instead of the functions associated with NIST CSFas depicted in FIG. 5A. To select only primary controls, which aredesigned to be critical and early-implementation controls, an authorizeduser may select button/filter 211. For example, a critical andearly-implementation control may be AC-2: Account Management, whichcontains basic account management practices.

Buttons 212 allows the authorized user to sort the NIST CSF controls byFramework functions, which include Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond,and Recover. The functions are a series of generalized actions fororganizations to implement and continuously improve upon, as specifiedby the NIST CSF. Specifically, and by selecting button 212, thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system may display buttons 213,which are selectable, and that represent the categories (e.g., assetmanagement, business environment, governance, risk assessment, and riskmanagement strategy) for each of the functions. For example, thefunction Identify's first category is Asset Management, which directsthe organization to consider all the assets they have under managementthat support their business functions.

By selecting a particular button 213, representing a category, thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system may display theapplicable controls for the category. For example, and after selecting abutton 213, representing the category “Asset Management”, thecybersecurity and scoring recommendation system may display the controlsin the main window as depicted in FIG. 5A. Alternatively, if button 213,associated with Anomalies and Events that is a category associated withFramework function Detect, was selected, the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 may display in the main window the controlsassociated with Anomalies and Events category. For illustrative andsimplicity purposes, FIG. 5A does not list all of the categoriesassociated with each of the different framework functions (e.g.,Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover).

Toolbar 214 allows an authorized user to access the controls list page,view a general report depicting baseline posture along the fivefunctions of the Cybersecurity Framework, as well as access a landingpage that shows a cost versus impact optimization that suggests threeindividual lists of controls to attain three discrete target scores ofincreasing value according to an embodiment of the cybersecurity scoringand recommendation system 99.

Text block and score 215 represent the name provided to a particularassessment by, for example, an authorized user, as well as the scoreprovided by the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 forthe system under evaluation 98 irrespective of function or category,etc. In the example as depicted in FIG. 5A, the name of the assessmentis “Concord Corn,” and the overall score is 62 representing the scorefor the system under evaluation 98, out of 100, for the NIST CSF. Ascoring graphic 216 represents the current score for each of thecontrols listed in the interface 206. For illustrative and simplicitypurposes, FIG. 5A lists only two specific controls associated with thecategory “Asset Management” in the main window. Text block 217represents the user name (e.g., handle) of the authorized userconducting an assessment of the system under evaluation 98. Button 218produces a detailed POAM based upon the current baseline score that isbased on the individual scoring graphics 216, of the system underevaluation 98. For example, the authorized user may select button 218 todownload a copy of the POAM. Text block 219 represents a running countof the controls selected by the authorized user. Dropdown utility 220,if selected by a user, displays the current status for a control,wherein the current status, is, for example, Not Compliant, PartiallyCompliant, or Fully Compliant, which are the descriptors for compliancestates associated with the numerical scores: (e.g., 0, 0.5, and 1).

FIG. 5B is an exemplary control scoring interface 221 according to oneor more embodiments described herein. The control scoring interface 221includes toolbar 222 that an authorized user may utilize to navigate theutilities of the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99.Specifically, the authorized user may gain access to the “Dashboard,”“Assessments,” “Reports,” “Optimizations,” and “Settings,” by selectingappropriate link from toolbar 222 as described above with respect toFIG. 5A. Text block 223 represents the name and location, within theCybersecurity Framework, of a particular control being evaluated. Button224 represents a portion of controls scoring interface 221 that allowsthe authorized user to upload evidentiary artifacts and/or documents tothe cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 and/or otherlocation. Text field 225 may receive user input from the authorized userto provide a name for the evidentiary artifact and/or document that isto be uploaded, such that when the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 stores the evidentiary artifact/document it canbe associated with the name provided by the authorized user.

Text field 226 may receive a URL, provided by the user, associated withthe evidentiary artifact and/or document. For example, the URL may bethe location of the evidentiary artifact/document, such that it can beretrieved from the location to be stored by the cybersecurity scoringand recommendation system 99. Text field 227 includes one or moresimplified tasks or instructions provided by the cybersecurity scoringand recommendation system 99 to an authorized user in order tofacilitate compliance and to move the current score towards the targetscore. Query script 228, 229, 232, and 233 are illustrative and areprovided by the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 tothe authorized user. Scoring fields 235 may be selected by theauthorized user to provide answers to the query scripts provided by thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99.

Dropdown menu 230 may be manipulated by the authorized user to assign aparticular control to other authorized users, as described above. Notesfield 234 provides a field such that the authorized user may input notesor comments that are relevant to the control under assessment. Button231 may be selected by the authorized user to save the data associatedwith control scoring interface 221 within the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99.

FIG. 6A is an exemplary graphical interface 236 utilized to provideoptimizations to an authorized user according to one or more embodimentsdescribed herein. Text block 237 represents the name of one particularoptimization plan provided by the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99. As depicted in FIG. 6A, graphical interface236 includes the current score 240 of the system under evaluation 98. Inthis example, the current score 240 is 66. Specifically, the currentscore may be determined by the cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem 99 and represents the current “posture” of the system underevaluation 98. Graphical interface 236 includes three sections whereeach section includes a target score 241 associated with a number ofcontrols. For example, the target score 239 in the first section is 72and is associated with five particular controls, indicating that thefive particular controls can be manipulated to move the system underevaluation 98 from the current score of 66 to the target score of 72.Similarly, the target score 239 in the second section is 77 and isassociated with ten particular controls, indicating that the tenparticular controls can be manipulated to move the system underevaluation 98 from the current score of 66 to the target score of 77. Inaddition, the target score 239 in the third section is 82 and isassociated with fifteen particular controls, indicating that the fifteenparticular controls can be manipulated to move the system underevaluation 98 from the current score of 66 to the target score of 82.

Further, each section includes button 238 that may be selected by theauthorized user to preview the approach to move the system underevaluation 98 from the current score to the target score. For example,and by selecting button 238, the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system 99 may list the particular controls that are to bemanipulated to move the system under evaluation 98 from the currentscore 240 to the target score 239. In addition, the graphical interface236 may further include copyright, privacy, contact information, andterms of use links 242 for the authorized user.

FIG. 6B is an exemplary graphical interface 243 associated with ParetoOptimization according to one or more embodiments described herein.Graphical interface 243 may provide a Pareto Efficient frontieroptimization based upon cost, risk, and other variables to an authorizeduser. Text block 244 is a header that indicates that the authorized usershould enter values associated with the organizational utility for thesystem under evaluation 98 so that the Gap between the current score andtarget score may be optimized according to one or more embodimentsdescribed herein. For example, the user may provide values forcategories 245 that include, but are not limited to, “Risk,” “Cost,”“People,” Process,” and “Technology.”

The category “Risk” represents a risk score based on the Risk ManagementFramework methodology specified in the National Institute of Standardsand Technology's Special Publication 800-30, which is widely accepted asindustry best practice in the quantification of risk and which is herebyincorporated by reference. Essentially, organizations evaluate thelikelihood and impact of cyber events (threats, breaches, exfiltration,reputational damage, and vulnerabilities) and compute: L×I per control(where L is likelihood, and I is Impact). This may produce a risk scorefor each control on a 0-25 scale, for example. The category “Cost” maybe a number representing the approximate relative cost to anorganization to implement a particular control. For example, a controlthat specifies having a firewall in place will be more expensive to theorganization than a control that requires a policy document. Thecategory “People” may be a number that represents the relative laborintensity of implementing a particular control to the individuals at theorganization. The category “Process” may be a number that represents therelative procedural intensity of implementing a particular control. Inaddition, the category “Technology” may be a number that represents therelative technological intensity of implementing a particular control.The authorized user may utilizing sliders 246 to provide a particularnumerical value to each of the categories 245, and the cybersecurityscoring and recommendation system 99 may record the provides values thatare utilized for the Pareto Optimization as described herein.

The title 249 of this particular Optimization Graph is “Pareto EfficientFrontier NIST CSF” and represents an optimization for the NIST CSFcontrols. The y-axis 247 of the Pareto Optimization graph lists integervalues from −5 to 15, and the X-axis list values from −5 to 18. The fivevertices on the graphic represent the categories 245 and are (from topleft and clockwise) Process, People, Risk, Technology, and Cost. Basedon the values provided by the authorized user utilizing sliders 246, theparticular graphic is output on the X-axis and Y-axis. “Min” and “Max,”beneath each node or vertex, indicates to the algorithm, implemented bythe cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99, to eitherminimize or maximize that value subject to the other constraints putupon the 4 other variables. Although reference is made to the graphicincluding five variables, it is expressly contemplated that any numberof variables may be utilized. In addition or alternatively, severaldifferent methods of relative scoring, based on metadata, etc., may beutilized to enrich and retrain models.

The x-axis 248 of the Pareto Optimization Graph represents a coordinatefor a particular control. The y-axis 247 is also a coordinate measure.Essential to a Pareto optimization is the concept of non-dominatedsolutions as known by those skilled in the art, where a Paretooptimization rank-orders by the top results, each of which is betterthan a whole set of lesser results. In this particular solution asdepicted in FIG. 6B, there are three-hundred-and-two controls in theoptimization, and the depicted controls on the graphic “dominated” thetwo-hundred-and-seventy controls that are not depicted. For example, theposition of SI-3(2), representing a control and near the “Risk” vertex,indicates that it has a higher “Risk” score than controls to its left onthe coordinate axes. Each “bubble” in FIG. 6B represents amulti-dimensional position of the Pareto Optimization and includes oneor more controls. In addition, and as depicted in FIG. 6B, the size ofeach “bubble” reflects how many times the control occurs within the NISTCSF (many controls occur more than once).

Text block 250 represents another dimension (the labor weighting of aparticular control, or “People”) of the depicted multi-objectiveoptimization provided by the cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem 99. This bubble-graphic 251 represents the frequency and relativeutility of a particular “Gap” control (IA-8) provided by thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 to an authorizeduser. This text block 252 represents another dimension (the riskweighting of a particular control) of the depicted multi-objectiveoptimization according to an embodiment described here. Legend 253depicts the frequency or redundancy of a particular control within theNIST CSF. For example, the authorized user may utilize this graphic asdepicted in FIG. 6B to conclude that improving their scores on controlsSI-3(1) and SI-3(2) requires little additional labor while addressing ahigh level of risk within the system under evaluation. Additionally, theauthorized user may determine to improve their control score on CM-8(4)because the associated cost and required technology of furtherimplementation for such a control is low.

FIG. 7 is an exemplary graphical interface 255 associated with providingquery scripts according to one or more embodiments described herein.Graphical interface 255 may be overlaid on the graphical interface asdepicted in FIG. 5B and may provide query scripts based upon thebaseline score, metadata, historical data, and/or target score to anauthorized user to improve the confidentiality, integrity, andavailability of the data of the system under evaluation 98. It is notedthat the cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99 may recordthe improvement implemented by the system under evaluation 98 and updatethe score and provide new recommendations dynamically. Specifically, andwith reference to FIG. 7, the cybersecurity scoring and recommendationsystem 99 may provide to an authorized user a graphical pop-up 256 thatincludes one or more query scripts 257 that are generated based upon thebaseline score, metadata, historical data, and/or target score. Theauthorized user may then provide one or more responses to the queryscripts 257 by selecting the “Yes” entry field 258 or the “No” entryfield 259. In addition, a command line interface 260 may be providedsuch that the authorized user may provide text responses to the queryscripts 257.

FIG. 8 is an exemplary graphical interface 262 associated with providinga recommendation according to one or more embodiments described herein.Graphical interface 262 may provide recommendations based upon thebaseline score, metadata, historical data, and/or target to anauthorized user to improve the confidentiality, integrity, andavailability of the data within the system under evaluation 98. Textblock 263 may indicate to the authorized user that cybersecurity scoringand recommendation system is providing top recommendations to move thesystem under evaluation 98 from the current state towards the targetstate. For example, particular recommendations may be determined, by thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system 99, to be “top”recommendations based on other recommendations implemented by othersimilar systems. Text block 264 indicates the function 264 for the oneor more specific recommendations 265 provided by the cybersecurityscoring and recommendation system 99.

For example, and as depicted in FIG. 8, there are four particularrecommendations 265 provided by the cybersecurity scoring andrecommendation system for the “identify” category of NIST CSF. Inaddition, there are two particular recommendations provided by thecybersecurity scoring and recommendation system for the “protect”category of the NIST CSF. Further, pop-up window 266 may be provided bythe cybersecurity scoring and recommendation system that indicates moredetails for a recommendation. For example, and with reference to FIG. 8,the provide recommendation may be “CM-8 Configuration Management|Information System Component Inventory,” and the pop-up window 266 mayprovide the details of “Upload inventory artifacts to document store forreference/audit purposes.”

This description is to be taken only by way of example and not tootherwise limit the scope of the embodiments herein. It is the object ofthe appended claims to cover all such variations and modifications ascome within the true spirit and scope of the embodiments herein. Thedrawings are not drawn to scale and are not intended to limit is thefull scope of the embodiments herein.

What is claimed is:
 1. A cybersecurity system, comprising: processinglogic configured to: receive a value for at least one cybersecuritycontrol, wherein the value indicates a current state of the clientsystem with respect to the at least one cybersecurity control; receive atarget score for the at least one cybersecurity control; and transmit,over the network and to a client system, one or more suggestions thatinclude one or more updates to be made to the client system to move theat least one cybersecurity control from the value to the target score toimprove cybersecurity of the client system, wherein the one or moresuggestions are selected based on at least the value and the targetscore.
 2. The cybersecurity system of claim 1, wherein the one or moresuggestions are created using logic, wherein the logic includes one ormore of artificial intelligence, machine learning, fuzzy logic, andneural networks.
 3. The cybersecurity system of claim 1, wherein the oneor more cybersecurity controls are based on one of an industry standardframework and a custom framework.
 4. The cybersecurity system of claim1, wherein the at least one cybersecurity control includes a pluralityof cybersecurity controls and wherein the processing logic is furtherconfigured to: assign an overall score to the client system, wherein theoverall score represents a collective score and is based on the valuesfor each of the plurality of cybersecurity controls.
 5. Thecybersecurity system of claim 1, wherein the processing logic is furtherconfigured to generate one or more progress reports utilizing thecontrol information, wherein the control information is timestamped. 6.The cybersecurity system of claim 1, wherein the processing logic isfurther configured to display, on a display, the values of the at leastone cybersecurity control in one or more graphical formats, wherein theone or more graphical formats includes one or more of a spider chart, aradar chart, a bar chart, and a table.
 7. The cybersecurity system ofclaim 1, wherein the processing logic is further configured to display,on a display, a gap between the value and the target score.
 8. Thecybersecurity system of claim 1, wherein the processing logic is furtherconfigured to identify, utilizing an audit trail, changes to one or moreof a user name, a date, a time, a media access control (MAC) address, anInternet Protocol (IP) address, a location, a device type, and abiometric recognition.
 9. The cybersecurity system of claim 1, whereinthe value indicates one of whether the client system is in compliancewith a particular cybersecurity control, is not in compliance with theparticular cybersecurity control, is in partial compliance with theparticular cybersecurity control, and that the particular cybersecuritycontrol is not applicable to the client system.
 10. The cybersecuritysystem of claim 1, wherein processing logic is further configured to:determine if the client computing system has been updated according tothe one or more suggestions; in response to determining that aparticular cybersecurity control has been updated based on the one ormore suggestions, provide, to the client system, a new compliance valuefor the client system; and in response to determining that theparticular cybersecurity control has not been updated based on the oneor more suggestions, provide, to the client system, an alert indicatingthat the client system has not been updated.
 11. A non-transitorycomputer-readable storage media storing: one or more instructions that,when executed, cause at least one processing device to: receive a valuefor at least one cybersecurity control, wherein the value indicates acurrent state of the client system with respect to the at least onecybersecurity control; receive a target score for the at least onecybersecurity control; and transmit, over the network and to a clientsystem, one or more suggestions that include one or more updates to bemade to the client system to move the at least one cybersecurity controlfrom the value to the target score to improve cybersecurity of theclient system, wherein the one or more suggestions are selected based onat least the value and the target score.
 12. The non-transitorycomputer-readable storage media of claim 11, wherein the one or moresuggestions are created using logic, wherein the logic includes one ormore of artificial intelligence, machine learning, fuzzy logic, andneural networks.
 13. The non-transitory computer-readable storage mediaof claim 11, wherein the one or more cybersecurity controls are based onone of an industry standard framework and a custom framework.
 14. Thenon-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 11, wherein theat least one cybersecurity control includes a plurality of cybersecuritycontrols, and further storing one or more instructions that, whenexecuted, cause the at least one processing device to: assign an overallscore to the client system, wherein the overall score represents acollective score and is based on the values for each of the plurality ofcybersecurity controls.
 15. The non-transitory computer-readable mediaof claim 11, further storing: one or more instructions that, whenexecuted, cause the at least one processing device to: generate one ormore progress reports utilizing the control information, wherein thecontrol information is timestamped.
 16. The non-transitorycomputer-readable media of claim 11, further storing: one or moreinstructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processingdevice to: display, on a display, the value of the at least onecybersecurity control in one or more graphical formats, wherein the oneor more graphical formats include one or more of a spider chart, a radarchart, a bar chart, and a table.
 17. The non-transitorycomputer-readable media of claim 11, further storing: one or moreinstructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processingdevice to: identify, utilizing an audit trail, changes to one or more ofa user name, a date, a time, a media access control (MAC) address, anInternet Protocol (IP) address, a location, a device type, and abiometric recognition.
 18. The non-transitory computer-readable media ofclaim 11, wherein the value indicates one of whether the client systemis in compliance with a particular cybersecurity control, is not incompliance with the particular cybersecurity control, is in partialcompliance with the particular cybersecurity control, and that theparticular cybersecurity control is not applicable the client system.19. The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, furtherstoring: one or more instructions that, when executed, cause the atleast one processing device to: determine if the client computing systemhas been updated according to the one or more suggestions; in responseto determining that a particular cybersecurity control has been updatedbased on the one or more suggestions, provide, to the client system, anew compliance value for the client system; and in response todetermining that the particular cybersecurity control has not beenupdated based on the one or more suggestions, provide, to the clientsystem, an alert indicating that the client system has not been updated.20. A method, comprising: assigning a value to a cybersecurity controlfor a client system under evaluation, wherein the value indicates acurrent state of the client system with respect to the at least onecybersecurity control; determining, by a cybersecurity system, a gapbetween the value assigned to the cybersecurity control and a targetscore assigned to the client system, wherein the target score isassociated with an improvement of the at least one cybersecurity of theclient system; and transmitting, over the network and to the clientsystem, one or more suggestions for improving the cybersecurity of theclient system based on the value and the target score, wherein the oneor more suggestions are selected based on the gap.